FundMECFSResearch

Sorry I didn’t mean to sound cocky. It sounds like a byproduct of slow federation. As I edited my comment almost immediately (before you replied) after posting it, to correct said number and provide a source, but it doesn’t look like it got to your end.

Also MAU stands for monthly active users and not total users. But I realise that acronym may not be widespread.

So bluesky has 5 million monthly active users while mastodon has 1 million?

Thats a fivefold difference.

True. So both have around 10 million total users. Bluesky has no monthly active user statistic. But around 1 million daily posters according to this https://bsky.jazco.dev/stats

While Mastodon has ~1 million monthly active users.

So sounds like bluesky’s got a lot more activity with that many daily posters, as of now, anyways.

Even if your numbers are true. Mastodon has existed for 7 years. Bluesky for less than one.

So logically the precentage of users to active users should be much higher on Bluesky.

Also number of accounts is possibly a bad metric to judge mastodon because of the federation.

For example, I have 8 mastodon accounts (tried a couple different instances and programmed a couple rss bots to give me a news feed).

I mean thanks to bridgy you can communicate across blusky and mastodon. For example people can follow my mastodon account on bluesky.

And bluesky has gained > 8 million users in the past couple months. Mastodon has 900 odd thousand MAU.

So clearly the majority have gone to one.

More likely twitter users.

And yes it’s corporate which is less good than mastodon.

But it is add-free, has a working algorithm, is feature rich, is open-source, lets you self-host etc. Full defederation is coming soon too.

Having used both bluesky (self hosted) and mastodon. The experience is simply far better on bluesky.

Unlike lemmy vs reddit. Where (except for active user count) there isn’t really a tradeoff. Lemmy is simply far better.

Sunscreen was invented in 1946, it looks like. Our ability to diagnose cancer has come a long, long way since then. So it would likely be difficult or impossible to answer this question, since 50 year old data about skin cancer incidence will be lower than modern level simply due to diagnostic advances.

copied from a similar question

Back in the day it was normal to die of skin cancer at 30. These days, we prefer to avoid it.

🤣

I’m 99% sure possiblylinux was being sarcastic

!anarcho_[email protected]

or for shitposting

[email protected]

love your username lmao